JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[deaman]

Officially, and without impunity, I will state the fact:

JFK is dead, and remains so.

 

[Robert Prey]

I think you mean it does not support your interpretation of his observations. It seems you are the one presuming facts. Do you think you are in a better position than carrico to know what observations he was describing and how accurately he described them?

Oh, I have no doubt that Dr.Carrico's observations are accurate since they are confirmed by 40 plus other medical witnesses. But an observation is not a conclusion as to how these wounds were made. And nothing in Carrico's statements suggest that his observations are not consistent with a shot from the front.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Brainwash can only be countered with truth. That's the whole purpose.

So the purpose is to convince us then? To identify "brainwash" and counter its effects?

If not, please try to give a more coherent answer.

What is it that you hope to achieve here?

 

[JayUtah]

No. I just present facts, and you call it hype.

When your interpretation of the facts is refuted, you tell us all how closed-minded we are. You cannot respond to rebuttal except to tell people how deficient they are for not seeing your brilliant wisdom.

That's the hype.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Oh, I have no doubt that Dr.Carrico's observations are accurate since they are confirmed by 40 plus other medical witnesses. But an observation is not a conclusion as to how these wounds were made. And nothing in Carrico's statements suggest that his observations are not consistent with a shot from the front.

So we can extend this to all your witnesses? Their observations are not conclusions and do not prove your claim, are merely no inconsistent?

 

[JayUtah]

No. The debate is re-started by others.

No. This is just one of several threads you cycle through in an endless series of fringe-resets.

So, I merely re-list them...

That's right, you ignore pages of refutation and resurrect the same propositions as before, as if no objection had ever been offered. You have the same argument over and over again, for what purpose we can only imagine. You get backed into a corner, you shout "Baloney!" and then you run away to resuscitate some other thread.

...and now the critics are mostly quiet, except for you and TomTom who continually feel the need to proclaim "victory". Very telling.

Nice try. You'll notice I'm also mostly quiet. Why? Because all that needs to be said has already been said. Your infamous and well-established pattern of delicatessen-style evasion doesn't need to be belabored. Perhaps you want to rehash an old argument, but I don't. My rebuttals are already here in the thread, and your inability to give more than single-word panic-stricken responses needs no further emphasis from me.

Or do we need another credibility poll?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Uh, well, what seems to be missing here is a large blow-out in the back of the head,

Really? So what exactly is that in the top right quarter of the head. Is that wound not large? Not blown out? Not on the back, despite being visible from behind, on the prosterior?

Please, explain what that drawing is of.

along with the cerebellum,

Why do you think that looking into the wound you would not be able to see as far as the cerebellum? That is how the wound was described in the passage you quoted. Not that the wound was to the cerebellum itself.

the occiput

Please, explain which areas of the skull you think were compromised by the entrance and exit wounds in the diagram.

and blasted brains lying about.

What were they lying about?

This head looks very much in tact.

Really? So if you saw somebody with the wounds in the illustration you would think they were intact? The top right quadrant represents a healthy skull structre intact? With no visible fault or open wound?

Also missing is a single medical witness that affirms what Mr. Rydberg drew here - a dime sized "entry" wound in the back of the head.

Are you sure about this? Want to think carefully if no part of the autopsy or testemony might be applied to that entry wound?

 

[Tomtomkent]

So, I merely re-list them, and now the critics are mostly quiet, except for you and TomTom who continually feel the need to proclaim "victory". Very telling.

Please quote any post I have made in which I describe myself as claiming victory, declare victory, or describe myself as victorious. I would hate to think you were baring false witness.

 

[JTF]

Same Old *****

ROBERT: The data culled from the x-rays of the President's head demonstrates that your selective witness testimony is essentially worthless. The x-rays clearly demonstrate that the fatal shot entered the rear of his skull and exited the side of his head. The Zapruder film and the autopsy report back this conclusion. Conspiracy theorists have always known this to be true, so they've had to made outlandish claims in order to get around this concrete data. If memory serves, Robert Groden was the first, but certainly not the last journalistic vulture to claim that the x-rays were switched or altered.

 

[Tomtomkent]

The "official"?? And just what would that be?

Why those conclusions drawn by the investigating offices. Those of the autopsy and warren commission in particular. I assumed that would be clear by the context of my post, as you have referred to the "official" narrative, version of events, etc yourself, and the term has passed with out comment before.

Assuming you genuinely failed to understand: How would you describe those wounds described by the illustration under discussion and the finding of the WC? (As also seen in two sets of autopsy photographs, the z film, etc etc).


ETA: Of course, we can all deduce the actual reason for Roberts response was to avoid making the comparisson. He seems willing to tell us what words he doesn't think apply, but wont offer us a comparison to, or description of the autopsy / wc findings.

 

[JayUtah]

The Zapruder film and the autopsy report back this conclusion. Conspiracy theorists have always known this to be true, so they've had to made outlandish claims in order to get around this concrete data.

Indeed the conspiracy theory is based largely on the objective, documentary evidence of the President's condition being dismissed as forgeries in favor of subjective interpretations of eyewitness testimony of varying veracity, consistency, specificity, and value. This is common to many fringe theories in which eyewitness testimony is given undue attention and value, and where the subsequent interpretation of testimony (with all its ensuing error and personal biases) is surreptitiously offered up instead of the evidence itself.

Robert knows he can quibble endlessly over what some person must have meant or must have said, and what "blow-out" or "occiput" means in a written description. He knows that the best anyone can offer within that domain of evidence is a varying interpretation, which means the discussion spins on and on for another dozen or so pages.

This is why the JFK conspiracy theorists are so desperate to write off anything that seems remotely objective. The only way they can remain relevant is to blind themselves to anything but a handful of witnesses whose testimony they can manipulate.

 

[JayUtah]

Please quote any post I have made in which I describe myself as claiming victory, declare victory, or describe myself as victorious. I would hate to think you were baring false witness.

Not quite sure where I'm "declaring victory" either. Robert mostly just yells "Baloney" and runs off. I don't consider that a victory on my part, but it's clearly a retreat on his part.

 

[Robert Prey]

Indeed the conspiracy theory is based largely on the objective, documentary evidence of the President's condition being dismissed as forgeries in favor of subjective interpretations of eyewitness testimony of varying veracity, consistency, specificity, and value. This is common to many fringe theories in which eyewitness testimony is given undue attention and value, and where the subsequent interpretation of testimony (with all its ensuing error and personal biases) is surreptitiously offered up instead of the evidence itself.

Robert knows he can quibble endlessly over what some person must have meant or must have said, and what "blow-out" or "occiput" means in a written description. He knows that the best anyone can offer within that domain of evidence is a varying interpretation, which means the discussion spins on and on for another dozen or so pages.

This is why the JFK conspiracy theorists are so desperate to write off anything that seems remotely objective. The only way they can remain relevant is to blind themselves to anything but a handful of witnesses whose testimony they can manipulate.

Objective evidence? And just what would that be? The body is buried. The brain, missing. The autopsy photos in a locked closet. Your "objective" evidence simply does not exist. All we are left with are the statements of witnesses and I've shown 40 plus. You have shown zero.

 

[Robert Prey]

ROBERT: The data culled from the x-rays of the President's head demonstrates that your selective witness testimony is essentially worthless. The x-rays clearly demonstrate that the fatal shot entered the rear of his skull and exited the side of his head. The Zapruder film and the autopsy report back this conclusion. Conspiracy theorists have always known this to be true, so they've had to made outlandish claims in order to get around this concrete data. If memory serves, Robert Groden was the first, but certainly not the last journalistic vulture to claim that the x-rays were switched or altered.

One thing the HSCA determined is that the x-rays are anything but "clear." But the fact is, they show a spray of grains at the right temple indicating a frangible bullet shot from the front.

 

[Robert Prey]

Originally Posted by Robert Prey
Also missing is a single medical witness that affirms what Mr. Rydberg drew here - a dime sized "entry" wound in the back of the head.

Are you sure about this? Want to think carefully if no part of the autopsy or testemony might be applied to that entry wound?

I'm waiting for you to present that. Don't ask me to provide fiction to defend your indefensible position.

 

[Robert Prey]

So we can extend this to all your witnesses? Their observations are not conclusions and do not prove your claim, are merely no inconsistent?

I'd say about 90 percent of these witnesses report observations. Some, such as Dr. McCelland and Dr. Crenshaw also deduce conclusions, namely, that the fatal shot to the head came from the front.

 

[Robert Prey]

Or do we need another credibility poll?

Rational thinkers, confident of their position, do not need credibility polls to bolster their egos or their weak arguments,. but the fact is, 75 percent of Americans are on the side of conspiracy.

 

[Robert Prey]

So the purpose is to convince us then? To identify "brainwash" and counter its effects?

If not, please try to give a more coherent answer.

What is it that you hope to achieve here?

Exposing brainwash.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Objective evidence? And just what would that be? The body is buried. The brain, missing. The autopsy photos in a locked closet. Your "objective" evidence simply does not exist. All we are left with are the statements of witnesses and I've shown 40 plus. You have shown zero.

Ah, well in THAT case we would only be left with the rifle, bullets, latent palm print, photographs, autopsy record, bullets, photographs of the events, photographs of Oswald, purchase records of the murder weapon, and filmed footage of events.

All of which you will make excuses about, none of which you can objectively discredit or counter.

 

[Tomtomkent]

Exposing brainwash.

So you can not make your answer more coherent, you simply repeat the same incoherent answer. How would I distinguish between your responses and trolling?